> No, after. I want them to thrive, but they're not at an age yet where I can fully appreciate time with them.
You know that first 3 years of our lives are most forming on our deeper personalities. How people are calm, energized, focused, or somehow broken... they have started developing personalities while still in the womb. That they have no verbal way to express themselves doesn't mean anything. They do appreciate every second with their parents. They are building the foundations of their personalities for the rest of their lives.
You being absent (and seemingly pretty cold/distant personality) doesn't work work well with your claimed intent for them to thrive. Unless you mean that they will be one of these uber-competitive, never-happy but probably wealthy types which are mostly just sad stories once you know them well. If that's the case, you are probably well on course, and unfortunately they are too...
Parenting is time when 'me' focus changes to 'it' focus, it being the kid. For me and my wife, the transition was automatic and smooth, nobody needn't to tell us anything. I've been given plenty as a child and now I am giving back to next generation. Without thinking about what will come for me or my wife.
Nobody ever did a full A/B study on that, it would require damaging many babies for rest of their lives. We're over Mengele's approach for quite some time and time machine isn't a thing yet.
But there are tons of stories that babies neglected/suffering perform much worse for rest of their lives. Deep mental issues, lower IQ etc. Some proof might be stories I read from some specifically cruel communist Romania orphanage, where children were neglected, often caged or chained. Something like 90% of them struggled significantly in the society in their later lives.
> Nobody ever did a full A/B study on that, it would require damaging many babies for rest of their lives. We're over Mengele's approach for quite some time and time machine isn't a thing yet.
It doesn't have to be interventional study.
> But there are tons of stories that babies neglected/suffering perform much worse for rest of their lives. Deep mental issues, lower IQ etc. Some proof might be stories I read from some specifically cruel communist Romania orphanage, where children were neglected, often caged or chained. Something like 90% of them struggled significantly in the society in their later lives.
Children being caged and chained having long lasting consequences is so far from from the original claim that first 3 years of our lives are most forming on our deeper personalities. It appears there is no reason to consider that claim true.
Have you never been involved in a long project that was initially unfruitful but ultimately rewarding when you stuck at it? It's not supposed to be enjoyable, you're nurturing your child to establish the foundation on which your life together is built and to help them prosper.
You're right, it's extremely mentally challenging in those first months before they start to communicate with you directly (as opposed to general communication of crying!). But it's part of the whole experience that bonds you together in a way I'd never have imagined was possible.
Maybe it is mentally challaging because you worry about the job you have to go to next day? I'm fairly weak mentally but I didn't find that period a challange. I was up every night singing lullabies over and over again but when he slept during the day I slept as well. Most kids sleep a ton during this time and if you sleep when kid sleep most parents will sleep more than ever. Providing comfort and calming him was amazing to me.
